Talk:Wallowing in Pessimism's Mire (anthology)

Did this ever even exist?

I kinda got the impression that this was an in-joke made up by Andrew Hickey and Simon Bucher-Jones. I mean, it was deleted from the Obverse wiki. CoT ? 02:31, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

I think what happened here was that it was only available for two months. --Pluto2 (talk) 02:36, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

The one source of all of this information seems very unrealistic and tongue-in-cheek. CoT ? 02:41, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

I think the only way to settle this is to check through http://archive.org whether or not it was actually there during that period of two months.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 03:02, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I deleted that Wiki page per request from Stuart Douglas for reasons completely tangential to whether or not it was ever published. He just didn't want it on the Wiki; as I understand it, it was a considerable regret for Obverse. NateBumber ☎ 06:26, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the cat is out of the bag on this one, and we all know that this was a hoax. However, might I suggest the recreation of this page explaining the hoax, as an entry in category:fandom? Finding serious information about this hoax without bumping into people purporting the hoax isn't exactly easy, so having a Wiki page explaining the history of the hoax would be genuinely useful, especially seeing as @Najawin, and I'm sure many other readers, genuinely believed this to be real.

Epsilon📯 📂

19:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that that seems like a good idea. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 19:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree; there have been hundreds or thousands of rumors and hoaxes related to Doctor Who over the last half century, and I don't see why this should be the sole one to receive a page on this wiki. We don't even have a page on the Omnirumour! A page about Wallowing would be a weird and disruptive place to start. – n8 (☎) 22:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with User:NateBumber. I know some people think we should cover everything and anything related to DW on this wiki, but in practice that's not what we do. If someone wants to start a sister wiki based on the hundreds of rumors and hoaxes, that would be kinda interesting, but that information won't be posted here. Shambala108 ☎ 23:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That is good reasoning, I am convinced. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 09:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

While this talk page has died down, it is clear to me now that my request was misguided and shall not be repeated. Wallowing... would be a weird place to start, and as far as I can tell now, it does seem to have existed at somepoint. Definitely.

Epsilon📯 📂

18:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I've just re-read this discussion and I've formed a new opinion. I think we should have a page on this hoax because, as far as I am aware, it was spread by people with official connections to Faction Paradox and Obverse Books. This differentiates it from the majority of hoaxes in my opinion. Bongo50 ☎ 19:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

But it's not a hoax though, why on all the Earths would Obverse Books lie about deciding to pull an anthology that is clearly a major embarrassment for them? :>

Epsilon📯 📂

19:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And there's the thing: this is portrayed as real so much that I, and I'm sure many others, am genuinely unsure as to whether this is a hoax or not. If it is real, it should have a page documenting it like we do for any other licensed DWU-release. If it is a hoax, it should have a page explaining it as it seems to be pretty notable. Earlier, I actually searched the wiki to try and determine if this is real or not and the only information I could find was a bit in the notes of Wringing Off (novel). That is not helpful to anyone. Bongo50 ☎ 19:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I've thought about this a little bit. No easy solution, though the discussion taking place on the FP forums about it might be helpful in the long term. If I ever end up writing a DWU story I'll probably put in a section including a bunch of lost/fake media in passing (eg, The Navidson Record, Poetics vol II, Inventio Fortunata, the Sherlock S4e4 script) and include this. Then there can be a wiki page for the in universe version that discusses the OOU version. :> Najawin ☎ 19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you should need to write a DWU story to allow a useful page like this to exist. Bongo50 ☎ 19:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering the fact that this Wiki doesn't cover hoaxes, plus the fact that lots of information comes from places like GallifreyBase, which we can't cite, and that T:NO SELF REF would stop us from citing pretty much everybody else, this shouldn't be covered here. However, I have just spent the last six hours combining the internet, crusading for information on this veritable Holy Grail, and have created a page for the lost anthology on the Faction Paradox Wiki — Wallowing in Pessimism's Mire.

Epsilon📯 📂

20:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing something here: is the anthology real or a hoax? The page on the FP wiki seems to suggest that it's real, yet it's not covered here as it's a hoax. Bongo50 ☎ 08:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The FP page appears to be incredibly biased, so much so that I doubt its accuracy. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 08:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Biased in which direction? I've scrolled through its references and they seem to include every relevant link. – n8 (☎) 13:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Biased in favour of inclusion. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 14:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of what, exactly?

Epsilon📯 📂

16:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Before we proceed much further in this discussion, can someone please just clear up whether this is a hoax or not? Bongo50 ☎ 17:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a hoax, yes, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say it's an ongoing meme. And funny as it is, I would appreciate it if people who know better didn't blur the facts on this talk page on purpose (looking at Epsilon here). The FP Wiki page appears to be an accurate collation of the claims that have been made over the years about the imaginary book, but written in a style that comedically refuses to acknowledge their fictionality. Maybe fine for the FP Wiki; not something we'd do here.

That being said, if Obverse have discussed the fake book in an official context, it does arguably rise to the level of a weird "marketing campaign", as distinct from random fan rumours. I don't think a Tardis Wiki page (but one that makes it clear that it's all a joke, committing-to-the-bit be damned) is necessarily out of the realm of possibility, especially as one licensed DWU story now presents itself as a sequel to a story in the (imaginary) Wallowing, making it relevant to the history of some actual, existing media. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this really clears things up. I really do think that this is a page we should have. It would prevent other people getting confused like me and would probably also just be plain interesting. Bongo50 ☎ 17:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Scrooge put it into far better words than I could have. It was obvious that the FP page was written to be skewed in a certain way which is why I stated that it was biased. One such example was the claim that Aristide Twain had "supplied trustworthy evidence" of certain claims about Bill Baggs then linking to a comment which was clearly intended to be humerous. Also, certain comments such as; "the October 2021 BBV scandal that caused everyone with decency working alongside BBV to quit" stray away from the neutrality that these pages should offer. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 17:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, I too think that the page should be made but shouldn't have an (anthology) or (unproduced story) tag attached to the title. The page should identify it as an in-joke/marketing campaign especially due to the fact that, as Scrooge states, another valid story poses as being a sequel to one of the stories purportedly contained inside the anthology. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 18:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Since Stuart Douglas has alluded to the book becoming a reality sometime in the future ("There never has been such a book. Yet.") an unprod tag might not be totally unwarranted. – n8 (☎) 19:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Totally unwarranted considering the book has never been in production. If it becomes a reality one day, or even goes into production, then perhaps. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 19:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, you don't know whether it's gone into production. A proof copy does exist, after all. – n8 (☎) 15:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That is why the burden of proof would be on you or whoever wants to describe it as being in/having been in production. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 16:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but remember also the concept of future-proofing in our rules. – n8 (☎) 17:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Uh, surely we can't put false information onto this site just in case things change in the future? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 17:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Point of information, the burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim, be it a positive or a negative claim. Najawin ☎ 17:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly as I said, in this situation the burden of proof is on those claiming this work was in production. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 17:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Er, no, it's not exactly as you said. You made a claim as well.

the book has never been in production

Technically speaking, you should support this. Najawin ☎ 18:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The claim that I made was not a solid stance. I am simply saying that there is no evidence that the book has ever been in production - and actually there is a lot of evidence, posted in this very thread, that it was simply a hoax/joke. Therefore, as I pointed out, someone who was claiming that the book had been in production would have to satisfy the burden of proof as currently no evidence has been put forward. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 18:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

But that's not what you said, hence my point of information. If you want to amend your statement and admit you overreached I have no objections. I'm just noting, for future reference, that there's no distinction on who has a burden of proof. Najawin ☎ 18:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)